I wonder how many doping controls other top riders have had to submit to so far this year. It seems the vampires are following Lance everywhere he goes, which I don't find entirely surprising, but still interesting.

Shogun wrote:I wonder how many doping controls other top riders have had to submit to so far this year. It seems the vampires are following Lance everywhere he goes, which I don't find entirely surprising, but still interesting.

Any way to find out? I've wondered how much others have been tested for some time now. Also, who tests? It seems different authorities at any given time.

From Twitter: Chris Horner on Feb 26th says "That's #9 since the start of December." Yesterday Taylor Phinney wrote " was woken up to USADA today... Didn't you guys come 3 days ago?? Yeah, I thought so. I think that might be number 10 in '09" Levi on Feb 24th "Now I'm getting tested at home by USADA, probably my 10th test in 10 days combined with #ToC"

Its' probably the money, at least female cyclist Liz Hatch might think so: "USADA testing. As a team VK has only had 2 tests in 3 years. How do I look at that? Women=clean or bigger fish to fry?"

It means nothing. Many of the substances that are used are not detectable. Others are not detectable if they are used in many small doses instead of a large single does. The big thing is blood transfusions with your own blood, and there is no test for that.

Armstrong ran away from Catlin's tester when he came to test him. That is more indicative of what he is doing than any propaganda posted on twitter.

But he's the 'most tested athlete in the world' Surely he's had more dope controls than that? Mind you he ignores the results of the ones he doesn't like though doesn't he? Like the EPO one from the '99 Tour, or just gets a TUE.

Tom Morris wrote:It means nothing. Many of the substances that are used are not detectable. Others are not detectable if they are used in many small doses instead of a large single does. The big thing is blood transfusions with your own blood, and there is no test for that.

Better would be to take the HC blood tests "on the start line", ie in the race start when riders sign on, rather than in stupid early morning raids. That way if someone's infused a lot just before the start, the alarm bells can start ringing.

I know several Bouygues riders signed a letter calling for an end to the UCI's early morning "Vampire" tests, saying they were easy for cheats to avoid, because if the rider is controlled at 6am and the race starts at midday, that's six hours to infuse blood cells, for blood doping. Sadly the UCI didn't even reply to the letter.

What bio passport? The bio passport is nothing more than a sham at this point.

Lst year, with very little data, the AFLD was able to target and bust 20% of the TdF's stage winners. The UCI has taken thousands upon thousands of samples and not managed to bust anyone.

In 2007 Anne Gripper was able to target and bust most of Astana's star riders. She did it with very little data. In fact, at the end of the season, it turned out that the UCI had done very very little OOC testing at all. Still she managed to catch people.

The bio passport has taken so many samples that it should be expected that some riders would test positive by accident or screwing up, just like they do on race days. But nothing.

The passport will be used to scapegoat a few riders while providing a cover story for the rest. If people think such a program run by the UCI will be effective then they are delusional. If you want an effective and comprehensive testing program, it needs to be run independently of those who can profit from the sport whitewashing its doping problem.

cody251 wrote:Its' probably the money, at least female cyclist Liz Hatch might think so: "USADA testing. As a team VK has only had 2 tests in 3 years. How do I look at that? Women=clean or bigger fish to fry?"

Forum rule #25: Any references to Liz Hatch must be accompanied by her photo. Forum ban is the result if these conditions are not met.